Pallavi Nayyar, Betül Demirdöğen and Scott E. Lewis
{"title":"Factors that influence general chemistry students’ decision making in study strategies","authors":"Pallavi Nayyar, Betül Demirdöğen and Scott E. Lewis","doi":"10.1039/D4RP00046C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >This qualitative study delves into the intricate landscape of general chemistry students' study strategy decision-making processes, examining the guiding factors that shape their choices. Past work in chemistry education has shown that students’ study behaviors are dynamic in nature. Employing self-regulation theory, the study aims to provide a deeper understanding of how students decide to maintain or change their study behaviors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to capture the study processes of nine students enrolled in first-semester general chemistry classroom. The results indicated these students’ study behavior decision-making process was either driven by metacognition or affect. Students who adopted metacognitive decision-making showed evidence of enactment of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge which could be influenced by either the nature of the content studied (content-driven), or the time-efficiency of the strategies employed (time-driven) during their self-regulation. On the contrary, students who adopted affective decision-making based their choices regarding their study behaviors on the emotional aspects and the value they attribute to the study strategies (intrinsic-value or instrumental-value driven). The findings of the study are foundational yet highlight the nuanced nature of changes and constancy within the study strategy decision-making process. This suggests a one-size-fits-all approach to improve student study behaviors may not yield fruitful outcomes and therefore, distinct methods should be devised to reach students with different decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 3","pages":" 877-894"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/rp/d4rp00046c","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This qualitative study delves into the intricate landscape of general chemistry students' study strategy decision-making processes, examining the guiding factors that shape their choices. Past work in chemistry education has shown that students’ study behaviors are dynamic in nature. Employing self-regulation theory, the study aims to provide a deeper understanding of how students decide to maintain or change their study behaviors. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to capture the study processes of nine students enrolled in first-semester general chemistry classroom. The results indicated these students’ study behavior decision-making process was either driven by metacognition or affect. Students who adopted metacognitive decision-making showed evidence of enactment of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge which could be influenced by either the nature of the content studied (content-driven), or the time-efficiency of the strategies employed (time-driven) during their self-regulation. On the contrary, students who adopted affective decision-making based their choices regarding their study behaviors on the emotional aspects and the value they attribute to the study strategies (intrinsic-value or instrumental-value driven). The findings of the study are foundational yet highlight the nuanced nature of changes and constancy within the study strategy decision-making process. This suggests a one-size-fits-all approach to improve student study behaviors may not yield fruitful outcomes and therefore, distinct methods should be devised to reach students with different decision-making processes.